Throughout the last century, Congress has been delegating a lot of its legislative authority to the executive branch through the creation of new administrative agencies to make new regulations.

Free speech on college campuses has become a significant issue. From the riots at Berkeley over Milo Yiannopoulos, to the use of harassment of Charles Murray at Middlebury College, there have been cases of individuals being silenced to stop them from speaking their thoughts on various issues. However, one pressing issue has been administrative support to silence dissent and prevent opposing viewpoints from being heard. This flies in the face of actually learning, of which colleges are supposed to be a bastion.

Recent information and a USA Today report indicates that the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) has been mining Americans’ travel records to profile individuals and intercept potential drug traffickers. Over the past decade, DEA teams acquired over $209 million in cash from at least 5200 travelers at 15 of the country’s busiest airports. The justification for these seizures is the same used for most other civil asset forfeiture scenarios: use of money in the form of cash is linked to drug trafficking.

This week, the House will consider a bill that would stop the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from collecting identifying information about donors to tax-exempt organizations. The IRS, in repeatedly using tax disclosures to create political targets, has prompted a chilling effect on First Amendment rights and political free speech.

Today, the federal appeals court in Washington will begin to hear arguments regarding Obama’s net neutrality rule and whether or not the government should have the ability to micromanage the internet. As it would stand under the administration’s new rule, the government would have expanded capabilities to step in and add numerous burdensome regulations to the internet. This could pose many problems to businesses that range anywhere from substantial cost hikes to increased uncertainty in the economy; thus leading to curtailed innovation and less new products being introduced to the marketplace.

On October 4th, the Supreme Court began a new term, and with it comes a number of fresh cases for the justices to deliberate on. As the Court has begun to hear the first arguments, though, one case in particular stands out not only because of its potential impact on public-employee unions across the country, but also because of the repercussions it may have for freedom of speech and First Amendment rights.

Arizona's civil asset forfeiture laws lack any real protections for law-abiding citizens and their property. In direct contradiction with the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which guarantee the right of due process, the property owner, who may never be charged with a crime, bears the burden to prove that his property is innocent before he can get it back. That is why the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of Arizona's forfeiture laws.